Evidence at the Nottingham attacks public inquiry on Thursday afternoon 26 February focused on police handling of an earlier violent incident involving Valdo Calocane in May 2020, with a Nottinghamshire Police officer questioned in detail about investigative decisions, communication with a victim and the handling of mental health information.
PC Richard Marsden, a response officer with Nottinghamshire Police since 2010, gave evidence about an incident on 24 May 2020 at a flat in Nottingham in which a woman later identified in the inquiry as Feven jumped from a first-floor window after becoming frightened when a man identified as Calocane repeatedly kicked her front door. The woman sustained serious spinal injuries requiring surgery following the fall.
The officer told the inquiry he attended the scene, photographed damage to the property and later took a witness statement from the injured woman at hospital. Initial police records described her injuries as minor because the full medical diagnosis was not yet known at the time. Subsequent updates confirmed fractures to her vertebrae requiring an operation and the insertion of metalwork.
Counsel to the inquiry examined how the investigation progressed once Calocane had been detained under the Mental Health Act at Highbury Hospital. PC Marsden confirmed that he contacted the treating consultant psychiatrist by email seeking information about Calocane’s mental state and capacity. The doctor later stated that Calocane had no recollection of events prior to admission and was not considered to have had capacity at the time of the incident.
The officer accepted that decisions about whether the case could proceed were influenced by this medical opinion and confirmed that no police interview of Calocane took place following his detention in hospital. Under questioning, he agreed the doctor’s response did not directly address whether Calocane could be interviewed by police, and accepted that further enquiries about interview opportunities could potentially have been made.
The inquiry heard that the investigation was subsequently reviewed by a supervising sergeant and recorded as “undetected”, meaning no charge or out-of-court disposal was pursued. PC Marsden said this followed discussions with his supervisor based on available evidence and medical information.
Significant attention was given to whether two incidents involving Calocane on the same day — one earlier police encounter and the later Brook Court incident — should have been formally linked within police systems. The officer accepted that the incidents could have been linked and that doing so may have assisted investigators, although he said officers responding at the time were primarily focused on the individual incident they had been deployed to attend.
Counsel also questioned the recording of injury severity on police systems. The inquiry heard that summary entries created at the outset of an investigation do not automatically change even when more serious injuries are later confirmed. As a result, information recorded on the Police National Computer continued to reflect early reports of back pain rather than the subsequently confirmed spinal fractures.
The officer was further questioned about communication with the victim, including informing her that the case could not proceed after medical opinion indicated a lack of capacity. He accepted that she was informed of this outcome rather than formally consulted on it, and confirmed that he did not personally refer her to external victim support services, although he said she had ongoing support from friends and retained contact details for police.
The inquiry also examined whether the case should have been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for advice despite mental health considerations. PC Marsden accepted that referral to the CPS could have been made under force policy, though decisions were taken following supervisory review and based on prior policing experience in cases involving capacity assessments.
© westbridgfordwire.com
Evidence showed that police later contacted the victim on 12 June 2020 to inform her that Calocane was due to be released from hospital, only days after she had been told the investigation could not proceed.
Questioning from legal representatives for survivors additionally explored whether the incident should have been classified as a “police contact” matter requiring referral for additional oversight, given that it occurred shortly after Calocane had been released from earlier police detention the same day. PC Marsden said this was not something he personally identified or authorised and that such determinations would normally sit with more senior officers.
The hearing formed part of the inquiry’s examination of agency decisions and risk management in the years before the June 2023 attacks, with particular focus on how mental health considerations influenced criminal investigations and information sharing between services.
The inquiry is continuing to hear evidence from police witnesses and other organisations involved in earlier contacts with Calocane.
What happens next is that further questioning of police witnesses is expected to continue, alongside examination of decision-making processes surrounding earlier incidents and inter-agency communication.
